Skip to main content

Why Radical Transparency Is Common Sense

I think it's very hard, when you're at the center of a scandal, to know what to do. Frankly, you're freaking out.

And it is at that unfortunate time that people pile on you. So you get a lawyer. And you do as you are told: plead the Fifth or go silent. 

Which may keep your hide out of jail. But also damages your reputation forever.

Had you been investing in your credibility all along this may not have happened. You would have your ear to the ground. You would sniff out the slightest hint if a problem. You would banish it right away.

You would do many things on the positive side too. To make sure people know that you are on your game, on your guard and no bullshit allowed.

Like with scandals, people get heart attacks and cancer and we don't totally know why. But we know what habits are associated with disease. High stress, processed food, no sleep and little exercise - e.g. the typical person's life. We have to take active steps to avoid and hopefully reverse these.

It's the same with reputation.

Angelina Jolie just got a double mastectomy. She has the gene for cancer. A little pain and ugliness now means a lifetime of - well, living! - with her family, humanitarian work and career after that.

We do not want to go to the negative places. But we have to. When something could possibly go wrong, prevent it by talking about the complexities of reality. Give more information instead of less and make it meaningful, understandable and engaging.

An ongoing conversation is less likely to end in reputation disaster. Once you're a known quantity, people can relate and are less likely to judge you.

If you screw up, say so too. It makes you human. (We are a forgiving people! We like nothing more than to forgive!)

The absolute worst thing a leader can do, in my mind, is to make a habit of clamming up. Quiet leaders generate suspicion, especially when they work in controversial fields. It's like - hey, what are they up to? - even when they're just getting a cup of joe.

The human mind gravitates toward simplicity, story and drama. Tell yours first or you risk having others fit you into their own script. 

One you can never control.

*As always, all opinions are my own.

Popular posts from this blog

What is the difference between brand equity and brand parity?

Brand equity is a financial calculation. It is the difference between a commodity product or service and a branded one. For example if you sell a plain orange for $.50 but a Sunkist orange for $.75 and the Sunkist orange has brand equity you can calculate it at $.25 per orange.

Brand parity exists when two different brands have a relatively equal value. The reason we call it "parity" is that the basis of their value may be different. For example, one brand may be seen as higher in quality, while the other is perceived as fashionable.

All opinions my own. Originally posted to Quora. Public domain photo by hbieser via Pixabay.

What is the difference between "brand positioning," "brand mantra," and "brand tagline?"

Brand positioning statement: This is a 1–2 sentence description of what makes the brand different from its competitors (or different in its space), and compelling. Typically the positioning combines elements of the conceptual (e.g., “innovative design,” something that would be in your imagination) with the literal and physical (e.g., “the outside of the car is made of the thinnest, strongest metal on earth”). The audience for this statement is internal. It’s intended to get everybody on the same page before going out with any communication products.Brand mantra: This is a very short phrase that is used predominantly by people inside the organization, but also by those outside it, in order to understand the “essence” or the “soul” of the brand and to sell it to employees. An example would be Google’s “Don’t be evil.” You wouldn’t really see it in an ad, but you might see it mentioned or discussed in an article about the company intended to represent it to investors, influencers, etc.Br…

Nitro Cold Brew and the Oncoming Crash of Starbucks

A long time ago (January 7, 2008), the Wall Street Journal ran an article about McDonald's competing against Starbucks.
At the time the issue was that the former planned to pit its own deluxe coffees head to head with the latter.
At the time I wrote that while Starbucks could be confident in its brand-loyal consumers, the company, my personal favorite brand of all time,  "...needs to see this as a major warning signal. As I have said before, it is time to reinvent the brand — now.  "Starbucks should consider killing its own brand and resurrecting it as something even better — the ultimate, uncopyable 'third space' that is suited for the way we live now.  "There is no growth left for Starbucks as it stands anymore — it has saturated the market. It is time to do something daring, different, and better — astounding and delighting the millions (billions?) of dedicated Starbucks fans out there who are rooting for the brand to survive and succeed." Today as …